Hacker News Reader

Comment by palijer | Hacker News Reader

The tone of this article is always a bit off to me and I can never figure it out. This seems like some sort of bragging, boasting and I don't understand why that is appropriate. I'm not a car person, I don't have the same draw to then as a lot of folks, I've lived in Toronto for the past decade and don't know anyone who owns a car...

With that said, I'm trying to understand why this article isn't met with a response like "it is extremely unethical to operate a vehicle in this condition. The drastically increased cognitive load, poor stopping performance, and lack of modern safety features makes this vehicle a lot more likely to hurt strangers when you hit them"

I never understood old car culture, let alone old and broken car culture displayed here. Surely a vehicle operator would have reduced response time with the increased cognitive load to any divergent situation and be placing other's lives at risk by not having their equipment maintained to an expected performance standard.

Not to mention the lack of braking, and lack of things like crumple zones etc, plus feeling light headed from engine fumes and poor ventilation.

I understand being into old technology, I've been involved in restoring old tape machines and vinyl cutting lathes, broadcast audio consoles etc, but I don't understand ignoring the fact that you are exposing unconsenting members of the public to an increased risk of injury or death because of your interest in old technology. I don't understand accepting the freedom of that choice when it exposes unconsenting others to more risk just for your own personal interest.

I can't help but harshly judge the author for their reckless decisions because the car isn't restricted to a closed course and can severely impact others lives simply because they enjoy the thrill of it.

View on HN

> The tone of this article is always a bit off to me and I can never figure it out. This seems like some sort of bragging, boasting and I don't understand why that is appropriate...

...

> With that said, I'm trying to understand why this article isn't met with a response like "it is extremely unethical to operate a vehicle in this condition..."

Because it's not bragging or boasting. I don't even think it's meant to be taken literally. Especially seeing that the author is an engineer and professor. It's like a car guy pastiche of folk tale/tall tale. Just like I wouldn't respond to a story of Paul Bunyan to criticize him for eating 50 pancakes a minute I don't feel the need to point out that this car sounds unsafe.

Just the fact that it sounds like it maxes out at 35mph it sounds intensely safer than your average heavy and fast SUV/pickup/EV

I used to feel the same way about a stick shift: “why would we encourage people to take one hand off the steering wheel and spend and extra second or two fucking with a knob while also feathering two pedals at once to move the car when instead you can just press the gas and go”

It just ain’t that simple. Maybe when I’m 70 and shouldn’t be driving a lot of these assists that are in cars nowadays will help me. But I was driving my aunt’s car recently and it thought it saw someone in the lane I was going to merge to and literally jerked the steering wheel back to stop me from hitting nothing. I almost got in a wreck because that stupid fucking car thought it knew more than me. I now drive a 98 Nissan Frontier 5-speed and couldn’t be happier with it. When and if it breaks down, I’m buying a 94-2008 Nissan Frontier 5-speed, a 94-2000 Ford Ranger with a 5-speed or a 76-85 square body with (hopefully) a 5-speed.

Do I really care about the old car? No. Do I just not want all of the new garbage? Yes. If they remade my truck EXACTLY as it is but with a better, newer engine, better, newer airbags, more durable modern suspension, etc, and sold it for 60k I would take out a loan fucking right this instant. But modern cars fucking suck. They’re all shitty and people have been disillusioned into thinking a giant 3000lb hunk of metal made in 2023 hitting someone going fast is going to hurt the someone more than a giant 3000lb hunk of metal made in 1973 going fast is severely disillusioned about what makes a 3000lb hunk of fast moving metal dangerous.

There is a big difference between driving a vehicle that requires manual gear change and a vehicle that is in disrepair.

> They’re all shitty and people have been disillusioned into thinking a giant 3000lb hunk of metal made in 2023 hitting someone going fast is going to hurt the someone more than a giant 3000lb hunk of metal made in 1973 going fast is severely disillusioned about what makes a 3000lb hunk of fast moving metal dangerous.

That's the thing with crash resistance progress - two cars colliding into what would have been a fatal crash in 1973 have pretty good chances of everyone leaving alive with barely more than a concussion trauma.

My argument was not that cars are more safe for the driver (they aren’t), but OP said that by me driving a 70s truck, others are less safe… a pedestrian getting hit by a 3000 pound object going 40 is going to die regardless of the crumple zones, and a sedan getting plowed into by a truck, modern and huge, or old and huge, is still just getting plowed into by a truck. By driving an old car, the only person I am endangering more is myself and my passengers.

Driving an old vehicle makes others less safe. The risk of collision decreases with safety features like ABS. The 70s truck doesn't have these safety features.

> a pedestrian getting hit by a 3000 pound object going 40 is going to die regardless of the crumple zones

That depends on the design as well. A flat "sports"/sedan style car just levers a pedestrian with the hood - the legs will be broken, yes, but in most cases the pedestrian survives. A SUV or particularly American "truck" style cars in contrast just smashes the pedestrian's whole body to a pulp - see e.g. [1] for a visual.

On top of that, modern cars have a ton of automated systems doing stuff like pedestrian detection visually indicating pedestrians and bicyclists in the dead spot(s) and automated brake assistants, not to mention ABS/ESP assisting the driver in emergency braking to not lose control. An old car does not have these features and thus has a higher chance of the driver injuring others on the road.

> and a sedan getting plowed into by a truck, modern and huge, or old and huge, is still just getting plowed into by a truck.

A modern car/SUV absorbs a significant portion of the crash energy in its own body, additionally so does the other vehicle. An old car does not.

[1] https://smartgrowthamerica.org/bigger-vehicles-are-directly-...

Right on. Though the safety features built in to modern cars these days are light years ahead of what they were back then. The primary safety feature of my 1960 MGA is a foam padded bar for the passenger to bounce their head off of during a front end collision. Whereas my 2013 G Wagen has front and side air bags, crumple zones, anti-lock brakes, collision avoidance and so on.

Relevant - Mercedes missed out on a $250k G Wagen sale because they build so much electronic crap into the new models that I personally cannot stand (like you!). I don't need a distracting touch screen or Alexa built into my car, thanks.

Exactly. And to be clear, my argument is for the other people: my car hitting them will do arguably the same amount of damage if it’s a half ton pickup from the 70s vs today, it’s just about how safe I am in a crash, so the only person that gets to determine that and weigh the odds is me.

Automatic transmissions are now good enough that we can just conceptually bundle all that stuff up in the “let the car deal with it” box. (For normal drivers at least).

These driver assist tools they interfere with your steering evidently aren’t as flawless. And anyway, in general the “steering” task will be primarily in human hands for the foreseeable future, mixing ownership of the task seems like a bad move.

I don’t think all changes that put the car in charge of more of the driving process are bad. They just need to be careful about what they transfer over, the car needs to take the whole task and do it perfectly.

These systems don't pull the wheel when they detect something in another lane. They do pull the wheel if you try to change lanes and fail to signal.

If there is no one there, why do I need to signal? I don’t want the cat touching the steering at all.

To tell the computer that you intend to change lanes and aren't unintentionally drifting.

You are, furthermore, required by law to signal lane changes, regardless of if you happen to notice other cars around you or not, at least in every state in the US.

Edit: rereading you comment, you claim to have nearly hit another car when it pulled the wheel, so it sure sounds like you weren't actually correct that there wasn't anyone else around. Please consider that automobiles are heavy machinery, you take on a great deal of responsibility when you get behind the wheel, and that safety code have been written in blood.

At least in my state, ARS 28-754 sb. 1 at the end specifies “if any other traffic would be affected”.

If you aren’t near any other cars, like no other cars in sight, you cannot get in trouble for not signaling if a cop is sitting off the roadway and wants to pull you over for it. Nearly every state has a clause like this.

> Surely a vehicle operator would have reduced response time with the increased cognitive load to any divergent situation

Maybe. I would think it more plausible that a vehicle that requires the operator to actively engage in its operation would, well, keep the operator engaged, and therefore their overall reaction time would likely be faster than a typical driver.

> and be placing other's lives at risk by not having their equipment maintained to an expected performance standard.

> Not to mention the lack of braking, and lack of things like crumple zones etc, plus feeling light headed from engine fumes and poor ventilation.

I'd bet that all of that adds up to less endangering of others than the mass and size of today's popular vehicles.

> I don't understand ignoring the fact that you are exposing unconsenting members of the public to an increased risk of injury or death because of your interest in old technology. I don't understand accepting the freedom of that choice when it exposes unconsenting others to more risk just for your own personal interest.

I take it you don't understand the legality of driving cars on the public road at all then? In fairness neither do I, but if you figure that one out then this one will likely follow.

> I can't help but harshly judge the author for their reckless decisions because the car isn't restricted to a closed course and can severely impact others lives simply because they enjoy the thrill of it.

Fun is the one thing that justifies everything else we do. While I agree that it's bad to endanger other people, IMO fun is a much better reason than simple carelessness or keeping up with the joneses.

> Maybe. I would think it more plausible that a vehicle that requires the operator to actively engage in its operation would, well, keep the operator engaged, and therefore their overall reaction time would likely be faster than a typical driver.

While I believe you are right on average, an attentive driver not fighting their vehicle is going to have better reaction times than an attentive driver who does.

But to support your point further, reaction times for each of us on the road differ depending on the circumstances (personal, vehicle, road and traffic). Safe driving is when we are attentive enough to react to common "failures" in traffic and avoid any catastrophe.

"Common" as in there is no fast enough reaction time when someone decides to eg. head-on you at the last second in regular traffic conditions as you are passing them in the other direction on a two-way street. Or someone jumping in front of you at exactly the moment you are passing by (even driving at 20 mph is enough to kill a pedestrian jumping in front of a moving car, even with the driver breaking as quickly as possible). It's useful to remember that we are all participating in traffic (and life) together, and we rely on general sanity of each participant to avoid disasters.

> While I believe you are right on average, an attentive driver not fighting their vehicle is going to have better reaction times than an attentive driver who does.

True, but "just pay more attention" is no more actionable than "just drive better". AIUI e.g. aeroplanes have deliberately cut down parts of the automation because it ends up doing more harm than good.

This is one of the best arguments for stick shifts: even if the extra layer of control may take extra effort, the thought process of having to shift, feather the clutch, think about what gear you should be in, rev match, engine break, etc makes you a better driver

Having driven stick shift since I started driving (22 years ago), it becomes totally automatic: you simply start relying on the engine noise to switch gears when needed and are not really thinking about it.

I would wager it isn't even noise, but a fusion of all senses, especially your butt :)

I'd say noise plays a major role. I've driven a noisy car for years and now that I'm driving a quiet one I frequently switch a bit too late when I'm distracted.

Sure, all senses contribute, but for me personally, engine noise is the biggest signal (even in well sound-proofed cars).

Ditto. Every car I've owned for over 20 years has been a stick. It's not more work than an automatic at this point and it's not forcing me to pay any more conscious attention to the road.

I can carry a full technical conversation while I heel-toe to rev-match the downshift into second at 60mph so the engine braking bleeds enough speed that as I throw it through the corner into town and lose a bit more momentum I hit the city street at exactly 30mph and can shift back up to third and tap the cruise control and coast to wherever I'm going. I'm not going to test it, but I'm pretty sure I could do it drunk and with one hand.

For me, being stuck in traffic with an automatic is more cognitive load than a stick. I'm always overthinking my inputs..."if I'm extra light on the throttle here, it may stay in gear and not shift since I know I'm stopping in 100m and I don't want constant up/down shifts"

In my truck (automatic), when I'm climbing up to the Eisenhour tunnel, I want it to stay in 4th gear and I'll just give it more throttle, but it won't do that, it thinks it's smarter than me and downshifts to 3rd and I need to hear the engine scream all the way up the mountain. I always try to find the sweet spot for throttle input to keep it from down shifting which means that I'm running about 5mph slower than traffic, and that's annoying.

Since my only inputs are throttle and brake, I'm always trying to find the combination of those to put the transmission in the gear that I want it in rather than just sliding the stick and putting it in the right gear.

Does your automatic not have a way to switch to manual mode?

I like automatics but learning on stick turns it into a skill game. Mind you not too much skill because basically everybody is doing it fine. But it does give the learner a clue that you're operating something serious, not something where you can push a pedal and be done. With that kind of attitude comes overconfidence. Like the manufacturer would have thought of everything. If I can reach 100mph easily, it will stop just as easily etc.

I can confirm this - had for 11 years manual shifting bmw (3 series e46), some 2 years ago it sorta died and we bought automatic (5 series f11). The amount of cognitive load is much much lower (also thanx to laser projection of speed and other info on windshield, this is by far the best security car feature in last couple of decades) to the point it becomes boring way too easily.

Once or twice I got into situation where I was very tired and was almost getting sleepy, this would never happened with manual shifting and the need to be more engaged with vehicle. Also, for 98% of the situations, 1 hand on steering wheel is enough so you can handle stick, and the rest of situations you should be able to anticipate if you are a seasoned sane driver.

Another data point - once I had to take my wife's car for 1500km drive to take it back home. It was old Toyota without any cruise control, not ideal for such long drives on European highways full of speed radars. It was the only time in my life when I could drive this run through whole night alone with basically only stopping to refill, buy vignettes or go to toilet (5pm-8am drive). Normally on this road, I get too sleepy around 3-4am and my eyes literally start to close even if mind still can go further, and I have to sleep a bit. Was way too pumped from all sensory input. But I am sure I don't want to repeat this.

Partially related, low speed parking lot and shop window accidents are much less common in manual-dominant countries (although those are less frequent yearly).

The usual cause is hitting gas instead of brake, followed by disorientation (expected = braking, result = acceleration, usually strong acceleration). Humans, especially elderly, can't reorient quickly enough. With a manual, you're depressing the clutch as well, so the mismatch is much lesser.

This was the reasoning my friends parents gave for getting her older sister a stick shift. After driving stick a while it just becomes habit. You don't even think about it. Though i do prefer being able to drop down a gear for extra acceleration on the highway, rather than waiting for the automatic transmission to figure it out and change gears 20 seconds after i needed it.

While I prefer driving a manual transmission as well, modern automatic/DCT transmissions are much better at engaging gears quickly when you ask them to than they were even ten years ago. In my current daily driver, one flick of the downshift paddle and the car instantly shifts down.

My plan is to get my son some really underpowered old stick-shift car when he learns to drive. If you're always rowing gears, you won't be texting and driving.

> feathering the clutch

For maximum fun, don't use the clutch at all except to start moving.

someone once told me: "i'm a safer driver when drunk because then i driver slower and pay more attention."

Superficially plausible, but the statistics suggest it's unlikely. Drunk drivers get into a lot more collisions than average; meanwhile sports car drivers get into a lot less.

sorry, i didn't mean to present it as a honest argument. this guy was pretty much a criminal on the roads. suicidally speeding driver when sober and a drunk driver when drunk.

what i meant to say is that i don't believe a need to overcome distractions makes you a more attentive driver. in my opinion it's better to have less (car operating complexity) to worry about, because then you can - or at least could - focus on the road better(and i have driven manually shifting cars all my life with very few exceptions).

> what i meant to say is that i don't believe a need to overcome distractions makes you a more attentive driver. in my opinion it's better to have less (car operating complexity) to worry about, because then you can - or at least could - focus on the road better

Whether you could matters a lot less than whether you would. As an extreme, your logic would suggest that the "dead man's switch" used on trains would make them less safe.

> and i have driven manually shifting cars all my life with very few exceptions

So if you yourself do the thing you're claiming is less safe, do you actually believe what you're claiming?

tbh, i've only driven an automatic maybe a few hundred kilometers, so my data for comparison is limited. furthermore, my manual and the automatic are not quite the same model, so it's all quite anecdotal. now, the automatic sometimes shifts at an unexpected moment which from a safety standpoint is probably a bigger problem than the concentration. apart from that i think that in most situations there is not difference, but in fiddly edge cases, e.g. low speed city maneuvering with lots of pedestrian traffic and starting on ascents, not having to worry about shifting might help.

as i didn't take part in a controlled experiment i wont claim that, though.

Here is a message that will resonate with you: Old cars avoid wasting natural resources and the pollution that comes with creating new cars. Also, recycling isn't nearly as effective as you think.

You're being unnecessarily judgemental.

The things you do for fun almost certainly has an externality as well.

I feel that, these days, it isalmost fashionable to be anticar to a ludicrous degree.

> The things you do for fun almost certainly has an externality as well.

About 45k people died in car accidents in the US in 2022, which if treated as it’s own category outside of accidents would be just outside the top 10 in causes of death. 2x more death than firearms.

Lots of things have externalities, very few things have as severe externalities as cars.

Said differently, go to a sporting event of 30k people. Statistically, five of them will die in a car accident this year (45k/300mn =0.015% or about 1 in 6500).

Edit: I guess it’s not fashionable to cite statistics on here. I get it, the drivers won the debate a long time ago, but at least articulate why your disagreement with words.

It’s not fashionable to cite irrelevant statistics. How many of those car crashes you cited were due to 60 year old cars?

> About 45k people died in car accidents in the US in 2022, which if treated as it’s own category outside of accidents would be just outside the top 10 in causes of death. 2x more death than firearms.

> Lots of things have externalities, very few things have as severe externalities as cars.

> Said differently, go to a sporting event of 30k people. Statistically, five of them will die in a car accident this year (45k/300mn =0.015% or about 1 in 6500).

> Edit: I guess it’s not fashionable to cite statistics on here. I get it, the drivers won the debate a long time ago, but at least articulate why your disagreement with words.

You're being downvoted because you are attempting to mislead with statistics.

The numbers for 2017 (prior to the pandemic, which skews the numbers) are from https://www.healthline.com/health/leading-causes-of-death#he.... They don't separate out vehicle accidents, so I'll use your 45k number.

1. The leading cause of deaths is heart disease, more common amongst people who smoke (very few) and obese people (very many) = 635k people, or about 14x more people die due to heart disease than motor vehicle accidents.

2. Accidental deaths = 161k. IOW, you're 3.5x more likely to die from a non-vehicle accident than from a vehicle accident.

You know which type of deaths match the numbers for auto accidents? Suicides!

All-in-all, that 45k number you give is almost statistical noise: vehicles account for a mere 1.8% of deaths in the US.

>You're being downvoted because you are attempting to mislead with statistics.

How?[0]

Your implication is that 100% of deaths are preventable and the 2% of those deaths that are car accidents are therefore unimportant? It's inherently misleading to look at deaths as a % vs. absolute figures (since we all die eventually).

People have to die from disease, it's the human condition. People do not have to die in car accidents (or suicides, we should prevent those too, but that's not really a hobby/activity).

The other way in which equating heart disease death with car accident death (or suicide death!) is extremely misleading is that the heart disease victim age chart does not look like this [1] even remotely. People lose a lot of years of life to car crashes.

[0]https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/traffic-crash-death-est....

[1] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatalit...

How much time is saved using a car vs walking ? What are the efficiency gains ? You should quantify the benefits as well as the risks.

Probably most people have about a 1 in 80 chance of dying each year on average over the course of their life.

The US death rate is 1.04% per year. So in that sporting event example, statistically 313 of them will die within a year's time.

Also if the sporting event was today then only around 2.5 people would die in a car accident "this year" as currently we are already in July ;)

Anyway that is my bunch of nonsense statistics :)

>The US death rate is 1.04% per year. So in that sporting event example, statistically 313 of them will die within a year's time.

Yeah but only some of those deaths are randomly distributed across the population and not correlated with age. Car accidents being a major example of that (unless there's a bunch of 70+ year olds at Yankees games that I'm not seeing).

Could also say the same thing about car accidents. The death rates for car accidents is different based on gender. What is the gender ratio at those Yankees games? :)

I'm willing to hand-wave over a lot of this stuff as otherwise it gets way too overcome with pedantry which likely doesn't matter...

I half agree with you, but if we're only talking about death and accident prevention it would be worth it to look at other highly developed countries that have much lower accident rates (there are quite a few that have much lower numbers, both per capita and per mile).

Of course, copying these countries will take time, especially because half the problem is the terrible drivers education and lax enforcement which precludes quite a few measures.

Things that could be done right now are:

* designing roads to calm traffic (bends and such): highly effective at reducing pedestrian/cyclist accidents

* building proper separated bike paths

* mandatory inspections in all states. a non-negligible % of accidents are caused by defective vehicles

* mandating and actually enforcing minimum following distance on highways

* banning modifications like steel plate grills (basically a human-crushing ram)

* scrapping the entire tax and regulation scheme that lead to the size wars in trucks and SUVs

Then there are things like replacing more STOP signs with YIELD, roundabouts, giving bike paths green lights together with turning traffic (requires drivers to look in their blindspot and yield) and lane discipline. Those broadly reduce frustration and fatigue which helps people stay calm.

> half agree with you, but if we're only talking about death and accident prevention it would be worth it to look at other highly developed countries that have much lower accident rates (there are quite a few that have much lower numbers, both per capita and per mile).

We live in an interesting time where it's an instinct to say 'Sure 45k people die each year from this, but how does that benchmark?'

Even if Germany had a 40x higher/lower rate than the US, why does it matter when people are still needlessly dying?

First, I meant that as a suggestion to look at comparable countries and look at what they're doing because it has been proven it will work. That is as opposed to different measure which might work but have side effects.

That leads me to the heart of your comment. Sure you could institute some kind of dystopian dictatorship that makes sure nobody dies of the causes we deem preventable now. But it would be a cure that kills the patient (free society).

So, there are always trade offs. What I was saying is that looking at other countries and what they've done you can see the trade offs in advance and decide if they're worth it.

>That leads me to the heart of your comment. Sure you could institute some kind of dystopian dictatorship that makes sure nobody dies of the causes we deem preventable now. But it would be a cure that kills the patient (free society).

>So, there are always trade offs. What I was saying is that looking at other countries and what they've done you can see the trade offs in advance and decide if they're worth it.

I'm struggling to follow your point here. Your argument is any country should only try things other countries have already tried?

Doesn't that get us into a loop of sorts? How did those countries get to the better/worse point without doing things on their own?

Unfortunately, the internet hasn't rewarded nuanced argument very well.

TBH I blame Toronto

Perhaps your reactionary pearl clutching is severely misplaced. The author didn’t say he drove it anywhere busy or that he really drove it much at all.

I can’t help but judge you harshly for actually thinking the author is careening down a street at any speed with the windows up “light headed on fumes”.

  > Norman Garrett was the Concept Engineer for the original Miata back in
  > his days at Mazda’s Southern California Design Studio.

The author is not your typical automotive enthusiast. He is an expert in the field, and knows very well the perils of this car. Those old Porches are an experience unto themselves, separate from the experience of getting from point A to point B. You would drive one for the same reason that you would climb Mount Everest. Not because it is fun or useful, but rather for the adventure and uncertainty about ever returning home.

This article does a terrific job of conveying that adventure.

The trip to the end of the driveway isn't very adventurous. You can't legally drive any farther with this deathtrap.

Presumably the vehicle is licensed in the state.

Take your complaints about licensing unsafe vehicles to the state - far more unsafe vehicles are licensed to owners who are ignorant of the vehicle's condition than to those who are aware.

I really hate this condescending tone, but taking your comment at face value, I have one very serious rebuttal:

I’ve driven brand new cars, and this exact same car. It is quite easy for one’s attention to wander in a “perfect” car.

An old car requires one to pay attention to their driving.

imo it’s all been downhill since the advent of power steering.

I don't understand why you (and others in these comments) are so judgmental; it's an old-timer, it's a hobby.

Nobody has these replies when it comes to older computers, electronics or software. I mean the equivalent in more usual HN posts is how to exit vim or do anything in emacs, but people get super excited about it even though the software is as old and complicated to use as this car is.

Let people have and enjoy things.

> Nobody has these replies when it comes to older computers, electronics or software

Because they’re not putting others in danger when used?

many have the replies with new self driving cars. Public roadway vs. private basement activities.

I grew up in a family of car enthusiasts and basically I lost interest in driving them once kids arrived. I still love the machinery and Donald Healy’s 100-4 is my all time favorite vehicle and designer.

The rawness of early development and the intuitive bonds of the machine is very similar to 8 bit computing. The whole thing is Knowable.

My 78 year old uncle still races 49 MG TC he took a 50 year break after High school. He loves old car problems.

> Donald Healy’s 100-4

Ack! You call yourself a British car fan and you misspell Healey? May Lucas, the Prince of Darkness, haunt you. ;)

There are drivers and there are spellers. Was I wrong about the 100-4 or 100-s?

I don’t think anyone would mind if the vehicle was being driven on private roads

I'd much rather have enthusiasts with a strong mechanical sympathy driving clapped out 60 year old sports cars than angry idiots in SUVs with twice the weight and power and controls that feel like a video game.

As for the pride aspect, it's cool to be able to understand how a vehicle works from top to bottom. You can't do that with modern cars. You certainly can't use your knowledge to coax a modern car into working in the same way. The author truly owns and is the master of his vehicle. Could you say the same for any of your machines?

Admittedly, their is some masochism there, maybe due to some unresolved childhood trauma.

But it's also about taking something that once had good value but is now old and decrepit and deciding to live with it as it is for what's left of it. The challenge is not fixing it but rather changing ones perception, expectations and behaviours around it, making it a proxy for the real world and also for your own body which will let you down eventually. You could call it a form of stoicism?

It's about a car but it could be about a blender or software with which you have a love/hate relationship and yet decided to keep using as a test of your own emotional, physical and mental resilience.

I get the feeling that the author is a car enthusiast, and the vehicle in question is a hobby project and not something to be driven on public roads. I think the fact that it is unroadworthy is the point of the whole article i.e. "good luck stealing this car, here's a big list of all the things wrong with it that make it a nightmare to drive".

Where would you drive a car like that then? On your driveway?

Some people don't drive them, they just enjoy working on them for the engineering aspect. Same way Linux people tinker with their setups. ;)

Some people haul them to tracks for vintage racing.

And then yes, some people drive them.

> Some people don't drive them, they just enjoy working on them

Yep, I bought a '72 Triumph GT6 a while ago and drove it just enough to get it the few miles home. That thing really was a death trap and made this 914 look brand new. This was about five years ago, and it's still not back on the road. I'm working on it as I can put money into it and enjoying every moment.

> And then yes, some people drive them.

For fun, I drive my '86 Porsche 951. I put about six months of work into that, and it is reliable and drives beautifully.

> "it is extremely unethical to operate a vehicle in this condition.

Maybe you have point, but its not quite sharp enough, because condition is but part of the problem. You see here in the UK we something called MOT tests which vehicles have to pass every year once a vehicle reaches its 3rd or 4th year.

A minimum standard of braking force has to be achieved by each wheel, irrespective of road conditions or whether the vehicle has ABS to avoid it skidding, increasing the odds of an out of control crash. Sure the minimum braking force is a blunt instrument, but its a starting point before we get into the finer peculiarities of how to stop a vehicle in different situations, like on ice, something I understand Canada has plenty off!

So are you telling me, that all the combined wit and intellect of the Canadian govt and people results in a failure to have a mandated annual road worthiness tests for the vehicles on their road?

And then when you go on about the lack of crumple zones, braking performance and fume emissions, maybe you have a point here, but then we only have to look at the logging equipment to fell the Canadian forests are hardly helping the greenhouse gas problem of the planet.

Crumple zones, do Canadians wrap their buildings and street furniture with pillows to ensure they have crumple zones for cyclists, or is this just stealth victimisation of someone who cant afford the more popular 911 let alone retromod it like a million dollar 964 Singer Porsche?

I dont understand accepting the freedom of the choice of people like you when it exposes unconsenting others to more half baked ideas and illegitimate govts for their own dislike of an internet article.

I will still commend you on your dadaism, but sadly I fear I might just be able to out dada even more prominent adherents to the movement like salvador dali himself or the majority of the LLM AI's on display today.

FWIW, the author's 914 would be exempt from the MOT requirement, as it's over 40 years old (and assuming that no "substantial changes" have been made in the last 30 years).

https://www.gov.uk/historic-vehicles

You still need to keep the car roadworthy (next page from your link), and this car would fail two of the main three points.

I only checked one historic vehicle insurance provider, but it's also a condition for insurance.

Probably much safer to have around that a juggernaut SUV from 2019, driven by a soccer mom running to do errands like her life depends on it while texting on her phone with her friends about last night.

Sorry for the oddly specific and somewhat sexist example, but I got clipped twice on a bike by such a vehicle.

I know you are aware of this, but I'll still insist :)

How did you establish it was a "mom" (as opposed to an aunt or someone taking care of someone's kids), that she was texting with "her friends" or even texting at all, and what the topic of her texting was (if it even was texting)?

Maybe it was a girl borrowing her brother's (who is a dad: I am assuming you noticed child seats or kids) car looking at the weather forecast at her phone driving recklessly?

Yeah, I get annoyed at people using their phones while driving (both when they drive recklessly and when they drive too slow making everyone around them nervous). So you should too. Moms running errands should not be the target of your anger :)

Having driven my share of vehicles that I would describe as "having character" and my wife would describe as "a shitbox" I can answer.

All the quirks eventually become part of your muscle memory for driving that car. At first while you're figuring out the quirks maybe it takes your mind off of traffic a bit.

After a while though, you know that you have to hesitate and wiggle the gear lever just so to get 2nd, and do it without thought.

Conpare it to using vi or emacs. At first it's a lot of thought to just move the cursor around. With practice, it's fluid and second nature.

  > Not to mention the lack of braking, and lack of things like crumple
  > zones etc, plus feeling light headed from engine fumes and poor ventilation.

Actually, the 914 did have crumble zones. The car was very advanced for its time, with a mid-engine layout and even fuel injection in the late 1960s. I won't excuse the author's refusal to fix his brakes, windows, rust holes, or clutch linkage, but the car itself could be brought to a relatively safe standard for cars of that period.

This particular car does not have fuel injection. The author talks about "dual Webers."

No, only the four cylinder models did, but the point being was that the technology in the VwPorche was very advanced for its day and general criticisms of typical cars of the period (no crumple zones) do not apply.

I could argue that stupid people are a larger danger to society than this old car, and harshly judge anyone who doesn't support eugenics. But it turns out that having an extreme opinion backed by a meager rationale with no evidence isn't a great way to go through life.

Tech we use is us (see: EMT and embodied cognition), and so we care about it like we care about ourselves. Phone is our memory and communicative capabilities, bicycle or car is our feet, and both are visible to other people.

Car culture will be a problem for as long as cities are built for them and people feel the need to regularly morph into car-persons (plus a couple of generations after), because a car is literally part of its driver.

Good public transport and getting rid of private cars in the midst of us will help, but it will be a slow road to get there, especially in countries that place premium on freedom of movement (they don’t want to be beholden to government-run public transit in case government goes rogue).

Meanwhile cities will continue to intersperse walkable areas with private vehicle accessible roads. Proximity of private cars to people means people are always in danger, and the desire to show off, like others show off nice attire or haircut and geeks show off custom mechanical keyboards (as well as to satisfy own childhood examples, if parents drive) by driving expensive or weird cars sadly increases bad outcomes (because such cars are generally fast, large, or broken).

That all said, the guide to stealing Porsche 914 was an entertaining read.

> Good public transport and getting rid of private cars in the midst of us will help, but it will be a slow road to get there, especially in countries that place premium on freedom of movement (they don’t want to be beholden to government-run public transit in case government goes rogue).

Honestly, I don't think cars are going anywhere. Granted, I understand your sentiment if we're talking about the city.

I live in a rural area, in Europe. Its mountainous, and generally only a 4x4 works when going somewhere close to the rivers. Even more so for people with olive trees or vineyards doing agricultural work. And that's ok, but these people also need to be able to go back to the city/town, where they live.

Hell, I need to use a donkey to get to some places :)

> ... by driving expensive or weird cars sadly increases bad outcomes

Just saying: of all the brands in the US the one that has the least average accident by brand ownership is... Porsche.

At this point, seen the sheer car hate all around, I don't drive a Porsche because I care about what other people think. I drive a Porsche because I don't give a fuck what they think (and I know they wrongly think it's a car creating lots of accidents, when it's actually the brand driven by the safest drivers out there).

It’s true that a driver who cares about their car may be using it better and safer, consistent with my argument above, so perhaps I am incorrect, who knows. (Although I believe larger SUVs and trucks are more deadly if they run into people.)

On the other hand, I know for a fact that there is so much more noise specifically from showoff cars (and motorcycles, but mostly cars). Not all showoff cars do it, but almost all cars that do it are showoff cars. Not sure about their brands, because I just hear the noise which you can’t really escape from. As someone sound-sensitive, this caused me countless anxiety waves, which I reckon is consequential for health.

Also, I have seen many examples where drivers of more expensive cars force pedestrians (and other drivers) to yield, bending rules in ambiguous situations, but I am not prepared to say whether I have perceptual bias on this (and in which direction).

i'm a car guy and i also think it's dumb. he should fix his car.

If you're on old car guy, you'll know he's purposely exaggerating for effect and pulling many issues across the car's time and placing them all together. Many of us have faced the issues he's describing at different times with older cars and so we can relate and nod our heads. The fact that he's a professor of automotive engineering, and has pictures of the drivetrain out of the car and a welder in hand doing bodywork shows that he doesn't actually drive a neglected 914 like a foolish teenager.

I've bought many an abused old car, including a 951 a couple years ago that had many similar issues. So I know what he's talking about. That doesn't mean I didn't fix the car and have it running smoothly now.

i'm old enough to need GI exams, and yeah cool flex, i understood that reference, i'm also a watercooled porsche guy, except this nostalgia about broken cars is not something i participate in. never have, never will. i don't get wishy washy over when i was so broke i couldn't fix everything (cars, house, computers, etc.) as soon as they developed issues. those weren't the good old days. the good old days were when i first started making enough money to make sure all of the stuff i owned was always in excellent condition and not a danger to myself and everyone else.

Don’t conceal your hatred behind a mask of a desire to understand something novel, you just don’t like it. Consider being more open to viewpoints that differ from yours, instead of setting up ad-hoc verbal jousting games that make actual communication impossible like, “Oh my, I simply do not understand why somebody would want do such a thing!”. Imagine if someone said that to you about something you liked, would you make a sincere attempt to explain why someone might do such a thing?

In my own foolishness, I will say something sincere to your insincerity. Risk-aversion varies wildly among people, and everything you choose to do exposes unconsenting members of the public to risks that could have been avoided. For example, getting in an 8000-lb NPC mobile that is designed to numb you from the outside world with 25” touchscreen infotainment centers might (in some ways) be more hazardous to the health of pedestrians and other vehicles that a 2000-lb car that was designed, engineered, and is now driven for the sole purpose of engagement between driver, machine, and road.

And with respect to the matter of maintenance, the only cars of vintage that are in perfect condition are those that are never driven. These machines are incredibly complex, and as they age, they take on many problems that have varying degrees of seriousness, any owner that can afford to will take reasonable steps to bring the car into a drivable state, but there are many quirks, odds, and ends of operation that the machine will exhibit that are either too mysterious at present or too expensive to fix, and so the operator does exactly what any rational person faced with using a legacy system that is complex and undocumented, they make an attempt at patching the problem imperfectly and dealing with some technical debt in the future instead of rewriting from scratch today.

I'm not concealing my hatred of this, sorry if I somehow gave that impression. Let me say this clearly then;

I hate when people make selfish and reckless decisions that can severely impact the lives of others without their consent. It's unfair and should not be allowed, and I think they should be judged harshly for it.

I always try to maintain an open mind however, so stating that I don't understand the appeal of making such decisions isn't some game I'm playing. I legitimately don't understand the appeal and am open to hearing arguments for those decisions.

Much like going 5 or 10 over speed limit, it's a risk he's willing to make. I much prefer someone driving a sketchy car because he's having fun than someone who doesn't really know how to drive safely in a modern SUV. Turns out they both are dangerous but one of them is aware of the dangers and how to mitigate them.

This is a false dichotomy. The commenter above would probably also prefer to not have someone who doesn't know how to safely operate their modern SUV on the road either (and would similarly suggest it's not a thing to brag about).

My point is this car is not much more dangerous than a lot of regular drivers out there. Can't speak for everywhere obviously but in my area some age groups didn't have to go to any class to get there licence (and not just old people here). We don't all need to be race car pilots but some behaviors I see regularly should not be acceptable on the road. That machine is not something I would be concern about.

I have mentioned some of the reasons in an edit to my above reply, but to partially restate: All actions have unintended consequences on unconsenting passersby. To some, it is inconceivable to, if it can be avoided, get behind the wheel of an automobile when doing so actively increases the danger and probability of collision and injury. You are blind if you do not see this in your own life, or if you fail to see that the privileged life that you do enjoy is only possible because of the tragic conditions of life and strenuous labor that the rest of the world endures for your pleasure.

Owners of older cars work hard or spend a great deal of money to maintain their vehicles in good operating condition, but the machines have quirks, some of which are impossible or not worth solving. That does not make them unsafe. That does not make them oblivious endangerers of the unconsenting co-users of the roadway. You have one notion of what it means to be a safe driver, others have different ones. Should people be allowed to drive 5000lb luxury barges, an unregulated and unpermissioned doubling of the amount of force at play in any collision that has been forced upon pedestrians and cyclists and drivers by motorists’ unquenchable thirst for increasingly sedate, massive, and insulated driving experiences, where visibility is almost 0, and drivers are completely dependent on the onboard sensors and warning lights to indicate to them whether or not switching lanes will end someone else’s life

With a car as tiny as the 914, the risk is nearly entirely shouldered by the driver and his (presumably consenting) passengers. I had a 944 Turbo for a long time that had a number of similar... let's say eccentricities. Those unique qualities did not make it a danger to anyone else on the road--quite the opposite. When you sit in a car that old and bring it up just to highway speeds, it is abundantly clear that you are taking your life into your own hands.

Think about people who ride motorcycles, or small single-engine airplanes, or skydive. These are risky hobbies, and there usually isn't a practical reason for doing them. If something goes wrong, yes, passersby can potentially be harmed. Should we judge them harshly for these hobbies?

Only in America is a 914 considered small.

Your just projecting your own narrative on this situation.

After all, percentage wise, sports cars kill fewer people than any other category of car, so this reckless decision is a lot less reckless than you think it is.

You’re talking past the conclusion because your own hatred is making you blind to your own assumptions.

List specifically what you think the driver of this car does with this car that is more dangerous than a typical driver distracted by a cell phone, or even an Uber driver staring at the app instead of the road.

Your false premise is that the author is doing anything at all here that is more dangerous than “drive a modern SUV in a normal way”.

> Norman Garrett was the Concept Engineer for the original Miata back in his days at Mazda’s Southern California Design Studio. He currently teaches automotive engineering classes at UNC-C’s Motorsports Engineering Department in Charlotte, North Carolina and curates his small collection of dysfunctional automobiles and motorcycles.

He probably knows a thing or two about car safety and risk. All the issues he described are around starting the thin and parking.. It probably drives safely.

> Imagine if someone said that to you about something you liked, would you make a sincere attempt to explain why someone might do such a thing?

"I like my hobby because X, Y, and Z. It poses no danger to anyone".

Seems a bit rude to accuse OP of concealing anything. The owner of the Porsche is proud of the shoddy state of his vehicle, and this rubs him the wrong way. It's not hard to see why.

Car culture forces us into daily contact with folks who are also proud of their vehicles, and their blinding lights, their lifted suspension, protruding rims, tinted windows, overpowered engines, etc. I am reminded of this vehicle [0] and its owner. Running "beaters" is one facet of that same culture.

It's a very public hobby, which puts the public at real risk. That makes it fair game for criticism.

[0] https://www.motor1.com/news/597254/1300-hp-mercury-comet-bra...

My guess is that operators of cars like this kill far fewer people per hundred million miles traveled than soccer moms in their SUVs texting with their Frappuccinos but I'm willing to be proven wrong with data.

And yet if your failing brakes are the reason any particular pedestrian dies, that'll mean nothing to the person you kill.

"Nothing's happened yet" is not how safety works.

Being a recognized expert in the field, he might understand how safety works.

"Do as I say, not as I do"?

Why, what's he saying?

Every car guy has an attachment to a car the empirically doesn't return the value of what is put into it. Some are able to get past this and be "productive" with their car hobby. A lot will have a car that sits in the garage and doesn't move, but is always worked on. Some have a car (like this 914) that can only be driven by one person.

Specifically referencing 914', they are incredibly fun to drive. The mid engine places the weight between all 4 wheels in a way that it handles like magic. There is always the dream of this car returning to it's glory. This guys is facetiously admitting it's just a dream.

Exact reason why I think it should be illegal to own anything other than a Volvo XC90. It’s objectively the safest car, and anyone who purchases anything else is reckless and unethical.

Man, repairing my XC90 sucked. I remember ripping the busted blower motor out through the passenger footwell because the service manual called for a full removal of the dash and A/C system which exceeded the value of the car. And the rear four spark plugs were horrible to replace.

Anyway, no, I don't think everyone should be required to drive a huge SUV with either a notoriously fragile transmission or a gas guzzling V8 motor. To say nothing of the unreliable sensors in the engine bay.

No parking brake is the one that gets me. How do you do a hill start? I guess you need to use the actual brake, clutch and accelerator at the same time?

How hard to fix the gearbox and retrofit a choke too?

You get good at very rapidly transitioning state, or heel and toeing. Both are useful skills.

I have driven manual until mu EV and I don’t understand the hill start problem/question.

leave it in gear and it might not roll turn wheels so it wedges against the curb.

The rest can be done with footwork a d sensitivity. My uncle always wanted the emergency brake working for when the brakes would fail.

That was driving until the mid to late 70’s.

Hillstart problem is when you're pointed uphill, stopped, and need to start going. Without the handbrake, the car will fall backwards when you lift off the brake. So you'll need to be good at working the clutch, or use your heel and toe on the gas and brake at the same time, or risk going backwards into the car behind you.

Most trucks don't have a parking break that is useful for hill starts either (i.e. it is another peddle), so yeah, you just get good at heel-toe.

I have a manual-transmission sports coupe (1988 Ford Thunderbird) and the parking brake is useless for hill starts. It's a ratcheting pedal to the left of the clutch pedal. Releasing the parking brake requires leaning forward and pulling a release lever on the left side of the foot well. I do hill starts by taking my foot off the brake and pressing the gas , and balancing on the clutch.

'88 TurboCoupe? I put a 351W from a '69 Mustang into one once. I loved that car!

Next oil change, throw in an extra drop and tell the car I said hi!

Using a parking brake to hill start is not the right way to do it anyway. You can push more than one pedal with one foot.

Whoever downvoted you have never heard of heel toe

Just because it’s possible doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. The hand brake method is much harder to get wrong, hence why it’s what drivers get taught.

That's how it's taught initially, but everyone I know who drives a manual thinks of it as a crutch to be discarded as soon as you learn how to drive it.

Same way we stop crawling as soon as we learn how to actually walk.

Almost everyone drives a manual car, except for a few countries. The vast majority of hill starts I've witnessed as a passenger have been with the handbrake.

We're probably talking the difference here between enthusiasts and non-enthusiast drivers. I learned stick so I could drive sports cars, and I've never felt the need for the handbrake for hill starts because I can just heel/toe. But my wife who knows how to drive stick but only learned because that's what her family had when she learned to drive and doesn't really care about it, always uses the handbrake.

Right, the latter represents the vast majority of drivers on earth. Handbrake hill starts are the better default.

I've been driving manual for 20 years and never heard of hand brake method being considered a crutch. Although I use it only on the steepest hills, I can usually time the clutch/brake/gas pedal to not need it.

I also don't use heel-toe - don't know what I'd use that for. I only heard about it on the internet several years ago.

I have a modern-ish manual (Acura RSX) and never need the parking brake on a hill. Left foot on clutch, right toe on brake, release brake, add gas and clutch together, roll up.

This logic is always funny. Fun fact: Motorcycles don't have a reverse gear, and lots of motorcycles are extremely heavy. So if you end up facing down hill and something is blocking your way? You're stuffed. You can't even get off and walk away because the bike is liable to roll forward off it's stand.

Do you know how motorcycles solve this problem? Don't do it! Just don't get into that situation. How do you do a hill start? You don't. If you're really forced, you can try, it'll be difficult but often it's just easier to avoid the situation.

Just in case this puts anyone off motorcycles:

- Uphill starts are easy compared to a manual car as you operate the rear brake and accelerator using different parts of the body

- Stopping facing down a slope requires the use of the brakes and a supporting foot, same as a bicycle

- Getting off a bike facing down a slope typically is done by leaving it in gear which keeps the back wheel locked

- OP is correct that some forethought is required on very steep or highly cambered surfaces when leaving a bike to ensure it is stable on the side stand

Most people use the parking brake for hill starts only for the first couple hours of learning to drive manual. Once you know how to do it, you don't need it (especially with modern engine management which makes the car less prone to stalling than old carbs, but even on old carbs, it's relatively easy).

When pointed uphill, lift your foot off the brake and gas it while at the same time working the clutch. If you're precise with the clutch, you'll move forwards without sliding backwards too much. If you're not, you'll fall backwards, into the car behind you. If you're not very skilled with the clutch, you can cheat and use the handbrake, but you'll get judged for that.

> How do you do a hill start?

I never use the parking break for hill starts and I've been driving manuals since I got my license in the 1989. Not that I particularly want to but whenever I'm looking for a car that's all I can seem to find in my price range.

Back in the day I used to have to parallel park my old Bug on a hill and the parking brake didn't even work -- it's just something you get good at after a few times.

Though... my current car does have a "hill assist" mode that automatically applies the brake on hills to help out which is kind of nice.

Hill starts with a clutch can be tricky for beginners, but they're not a big deal once you're comfortable. Left foot on the clutch, right foot on the brake. Start letting out the clutch until it just begins to engage, and transition the right foot over to the throttle and ease into it. The clutch will hold the car while you make the transition. A little slippage of the clutch, but nothing outside its normal operating parameters as long as it's done reasonably well.

Your concerns are not entirely unreasonable, and I say this as a car enthusiast temporarily in remission (parent of young children). Some of the things you mention do indeed make the vehicle less safe to those around it. However:

Where I believe you are missing a critical point is in assuming that the overall situation with a modern and “safe” vehicle is better. You’ve got entertainment systems, touch screens, driver aids (reducing the need for concentration), quite possibly child-sourced distractions (even when they are not screaming, they can be plenty distracting).

Now add to that the weight of a modern vehicle and the owner’s relative lack of concern/awareness/love for it, and to assume that someone driving around in a somewhat ragged antique is necessarily the bigger hazard could… potentially be open to debate.

Just because a thief would find themselves driving the car on public roads in the state described doesn't mean that the owner would actually do the same.

It's amusing that the car is lacking in security features, but that doesn't make it easy to steal. It's funny that it's hard enough to drive that a previous thief gave up and (essentially) gave it back.

The biggest hint is in a caption: "I’ll make sure the drivetrain is in the car, by the way." He's obviously working on the car to try to make it better, and there's no way he's actually going to put the drivetrain back in the car just in case someone wants to try stealing it.

Of all the things I read on the internet today, this might be the most mind blowing one - you lived there for 10 years and don't know a single person with a car in Toronto?

That is the portrait of a typical Torontonian.

They don't know a single person with or without a car

Isn’t highway 401 the widest freeway in the world? No cars though, eh.

It is! But like New York City, if you live in the built-up urban area, a car is often more of a hindrance than a benefit. Ridiculous parking rates, a good transit system, a mostly-flat city with an okay cycling network, dealing with car ownership isn't worth it.

I lived in Toronto for 14 years, sold the car I arrived with after two years, and bought a car a couple years before the pandemic after we moved into a less central, but still urban, neighbourhood. Neither car had dedicated parking, we had a street parking permit which meant I could usually park within a block of home.

I did know people with cars, but I knew a lot more people without.

The main reason we bought a car in 2018 was that Car2Go, which offered one-way car share trips in Smart cars, pulled out of the city.

On the other hand, if you live in the suburbs, you virtually have to have a car. The 401 at rush hour is filled with people coming in and out of the city core.

If you live in a Western city and genuinely don't know anyone who owns a car, it's not much of a surprise that you never understood old car culture - how would you?

He's not driving it, the thief is!

And, if you read his bio you'd see that this guy is not a mere car guy, but in the pantheon of car guys. When he takes it for a spin around the block he's doing what any mechanic does when diagnosing cars - driving it to see why the car doesnt: steer well, stop well, move well, etc.

The tone of the article is wry, such things are worth tuning in to.

> I'm not a car person

I think that says enough, the article is quite obviously a humor piece aimed at car people. It's not weird or strange that you didn't get it.

You can't text on your phone while driving a stick shift.

As others have said, manual transmissions tend to make for safer drivers.

Counterpoint - given that people will always text and drive, the auto makes the task slightly safer.

I'm assuming you don't drive manual. It's just not possible to drive stick and text because your right hand is constantly busy

My first car was a manual, and several cars since then. I can assure you not only is it possible to drive stick and text, it is possible to concurrently drive stick, text with T9 word, adjust the radio, and put fire sauce on a chalupa while it's snowing at night.

The trick is to be an idiot teenager.

LOL! Ok you got me there. Idiot teenagers can do just about anything provided it's stupid enough!

You are not a car person, you don't know someone who owns a car, you don't understand the car culture and yet you are commenting on it.

I am not a car person, but I have to deal with cars and drivers 99.9% of the time I am outside.

I would rather not, but they don’t allow me that choice, and they will also fight to the last man and beyond 4C warming for their „right“ to endanger me and my kin, as well as accelerate the rapid destruction of the only known habitat.

Yeah no I’m with you, the attitude is offputting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com